World is warming. Pope is Catholic.

Quite an effort has been made by many people (including Dr Richard Muller) to portray the BEST pre-pre-pre-papers as some kind of death blow against climate skepticism, as if the whole debate had been a sports match with everybody pigeonholed in two opposite camps: here, the noble scientists finding out the world is warming; there, the ignoble skeptics pretending the world is not warming.

Needless to say, it’s all the usual crass, outdated lie.

How do I know? I know it from the About page at [my] blog. Why? Because that page does not contain just a text by Yours Truly, rather a large quote by Willis Eschenbach. [Who is a major essay contributor here at WUWT.]

It was simply such an appropriate, informed, short and straight argument, I knew it was going to describe pretty much all my future efforts at the blog.

I also think that increasing GHGs will warm the earth … but that is not the real question to me. The real question is, how much it will warm the earth. To date, I have not seen any “useful quantative results” regarding that question either …

Once those quantitative results are in, we can proceed to the next question — is a warmer earth better or worse on balance? The globe has warmed quite a bit since the 1600s, and in general this has been of benefit to humans. The sea level rise from the historical warming has not been a significant problem. In addition, a warmer world is predicted to be a wetter world, which overall can only be a good thing. So, will warming be a problem, or a benefit? This is a very open question, and one which will be difficult to answer as some areas will win and some will lose. To date, however, recent warming seems to be occuring outside the tropics, in the night-time, in the winter … this does not seem like a bad thing.

And at some future date when those questions are answered, we can proceed to the final question, viz:

If GHGs are determined to be a major cause of the warming (as opposed to landuse changes, or black carbon on snow, or dark colored aerosols, etc) and if we determine that the warming will be on balance a negative occurrence, is there a cost-effective way to reduce the GHGs, or are we better off putting our money into adaptation?

Until we can answer all of those questions, we should restrict ourselves to actions which will be of value whether or not there is future warming. The key is to realize that all of the problems that Al Gore is so shrill about are here now with us today — floods, heat waves, famine, rising sea levels, droughts, cold spells, and all of the apocalyptic catalog are occuring as I write this. Anything we can do to insulate the world’s population from these climate problems will be of use to everyone no matter what the future climate holds […]

Post navigation

116 thoughts on “World is warming. Pope is Catholic.”

You can easily find the answer to your question regarding how much warming can be expected. Check out Dr. Santer’s lecture on this Blog. He addresses this question in a rational way. He also makes the point that the models are all publically available and are presently being used by thousands of scientists around the world. You could use these also. Information on this question abounds in the literature and it has been summarized by several sources, including the the IPCC.

I think this post is right on the money, we need to adapt not destroy entire economies just because one GHG MAY be responsible for some of it. I fully believe the climate is changing, but I suspect 99% of it is natural. The climate has been changing throughout history and will continue to do so, to think we can stop it and preserve some magic stable point is naive at best.

There is some evidence, as yet uninvestigated to the best of my knowledge that the end of the ice age may have drowned some very early cities – there are some very interesting and very unnatural looking structures off the west coast of India on the continental shelf at about the right depth to have been coastal during the ice age and I believe others have been noted elsewhere. We also know that the climate when the Pueblo cities were built in the US was very different to what it is now. So the climate must have changed significantly in the past and is not set in stone as the Greens seem to think.

I look forward to the day someone actually wakes up to this and decides to find ways to adapt!

“…the BEST pre-pre-pre-papers as some kind of death blow against climate skepticism, as if the whole debate had been a sports match with everybody pigeonholed in two opposite camps: here, the noble scientists finding out the world is warming; there, the ignoble skeptics pretending the world is not warming.”

Extremely well said. Right on the money. As regards your major point, please forgive me for taking this opportunity to explain what most turns me off about climate blogs. A large percentage of people who comment treat commenting as if it were a scored sport in which the object is to prove that your result is bigger than the other person’s result. Such behavior is a clear sign of testosterone poisoning and people are supposed to outgrow that problem at some point. Muller can be excused somewhat because he is a lifelong academic and is at Berkeley. That being said, Muller’s behavior is a fine example of the effects of testosterone poisoning.

Right. Again, also, is the thing I’ve been harping about….the premise of a stable climate to begin with. The graphs all show this skyrocketing curve. Yawn. Look at the vertical axis. Now look at the vertical axis as if it starts at zero degrees Kelvin. If you include 0-300 K as the scale, you can’t even see the warming. A tiny relative change in heat. And, Yup, it’s changing. Back to the yawn. Somehow the warmists want to treat tat 0.7 K rise like it was 70. Or something. So they build a straw man, and set him on fire. See the evil “doubters” (denier has slipped from favor…?)…they don’t think delta-T exists. Well sorry, we do. And it’s a non-issue. I must say “BEST” is an unfortunate choice of acronym….

GreenGov is a service offered by Muller & Associates
Helping governments build energy strategies that are right for them
Government energy policy is increasingly confounded by the complex interplay of international treaties, fluctuating prices, declining reserves, and a rapidly growing array of technological developments. Energy policy involves economics, energy security, and climate change. For some initiatives, these issues may be addressed simultaneously. For others the potential solutions might be in direct conflict. Coal, as one example, is abundant in some countries, but it is also a strong emitter of carbon dioxide
Clean Energy – demystifying emerging technologies and avoiding costly “misinvestments
We know that in order to be effective, solutions must be sustainable.

“Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century”

From “A question of global temperature”

“These factors all lead to significant uncertainty and a tendency for over-estimation of century-scale temperature trends. A conclusion from all findings suggest that global data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts. And, consequently, such surface data should be ignored for decision making.“

From “Adjustments not made or made badly”

“There are no adjustments in NOAA and Hadley data for urban contamination. The adjustments and non-adjustments instead increased the warmth in the recent warm cycle that ended in 2001 and/or inexplicably cooled many locations in the early record, both of which augmented the apparent trend.”

From “Case Studies in data manipulation”

“A series of case studies illustrates the scale and frequency of data manipulation. In every instance, the effect of the tampering is to make it appear as though temperature has risen faster in the instrumental record than in truth it has. This is but a sampling. By the time you read this, there probably will be many more.”

“CASE 1: THE SMOKING GUN AT DARWIN ZERO” written by the same Willis Eschenbach quoted above

“It is difficult to justify adjustment on so very large a scale. We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? NOAA added a huge, artificial, imaginary trend to the most recent half of the raw data. Now it looks like the IPCC diagram. Note how the magnitude of the adjustment climbs in discrete steps like a ziggurat. What’s up with that?”

“I think the BEST project is very important given the importance of the surface temperature data set and the problems that have been associated with the CRU and NASA data sets, not to mention their disagreement. “

The BEST project was created precisely because of the claims by skeptics of widespread manipulation and corruption of the surface temperature record. It’s entirely ridiculous to now argue those claims never really existed at all and skeptics have all along accepted the surface temperature record as reliable and robust. I find it difficult to believe that people who’ve been reading wattsupwiththat and other blogs for years and accepted the claims the surface temperature record was unreliable will accept they simply misunderstood what was being said.

Your conclusion is wrong; BEST was created for public relations purposes. And given Muller’s lack of professional ethics, ‘propaganda’ would be the correct label. Muller uses fine sounding words, but as we have seen, his actions are despicable.

“The BEST project was created precisely because of the claims by skeptics of widespread manipulation and corruption of the surface temperature record. It’s entirely ridiculous to now argue those claims never really existed at all and skeptics have all along accepted the surface temperature record as reliable and robust.”

As Anthony has explained in the plainest language, BEST did not address his evidence of poor climate records. As he has also explained, BEST changed the topic from Anthony’s 30 year period starting in 1979 to a 60 year period for which there is no siting data and, thereby, changed the topic and committed the fallacy of Red Herring.

“I can tell you that this project is partly a reaction and result of what we’ve learned in the surfacesations project, but mostly, this project is a reaction to many of the things we have been saying time and again, only to have NOAA and NASA ignore our concerns, or create responses designed to protect their ideas, rather than consider if their ideas were valid in the first place. I have been corresponding with Dr. Muller, invited to participate with my data, and when I am able, I will say more about it. In the meantime, you can visit the newly minted web page here. I highly recommend reading the section on methodology here. Longtime students of the surface temperature record will recognize some of the issues being addressed. I urge readers not to bombard these guys with questions. Let’s “git ‘er done” first.”

“Anthony has been on a crusade for years to show the world is NOT warming.”

Are you that ignorant? Or do you simply invent your falsehoods?

I’ve followed WUWT since its inception, and I’ve never seen Anthony Watts state that the planet is not warming. You must be confusing Anthony with the mendacious Michael Mann, who ridiculously claimed there was little temperature change until the industrial revolution. But MBH98 has been so thoroughly debunked that even the self-serving IPCC can no longer use Mann’s alarming MBH98 chart.

Adam R, Anthony has been on a crusade to get the best data possible before making grand pronouncements. This forum constantly demonstrates the value of questioning experiments, observations and theories. Demonstrating the surface station record was fraught with misleading data is not the same as claiming there has been no rebound from the little ice age. If you don’t care about getting the best data you don’t care about science.

“Anthony has been on a crusade for years to show the world is NOT warming.”

I won’t speak for Anthony but my interpretation is that the Surfacestations project was created to show just how poor the the temperature data actually is and to draw any conclusions from that data is probably not a good idea.

But as a skeptic, I have no problem believing the earth has warmed since the end of the LIA and I can’t imagine that my position is different from most skeptics.

My previous comment seems to have gotten swallowed completely, the site wasn’t loading very well when I posted it so here it is again:

When Anthony Watts first introduced the BEST project in February 2011 he said:

“Good news travels fast. I’m a bit surprised to see this get some early coverage, as the project isn’t ready yet. However since it has been announced by press, I can tell you that this project is partly a reaction and result of what we’ve learned in the surfacesations project, but mostly, this project is a reaction to many of the things we have been saying time and again, only to have NOAA and NASA ignore our concerns, or create responses designed to protect their ideas, rather than consider if their ideas were valid in the first place.”

Thirdly, there’s a huge difference between pointing out errors in the temp record and stating that the earth hadn’t warmed. Most of us accept that just because you can’t prove something, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Read up on some science concepts to try and understand that thought which, apparently is a bit complex for the average warmista.

Lastly, skeptics come in all shapes and sizes. There isn’t one person or blog that speaks for the skeptic camp in its entirety. In fact, skeptics disagree on a great many things. We abhor the echo chambers that are so prevalent on alarmist blogs. Something about we prefer to do our thinking for ourselves.

If you don’t understand what I’ve stated, just ask. If you disagree with what I’ve stated, then you haven’t been paying attention and should reserve your comments until such time you can get up to speed.

I do wonder about Muller… maybe he’s a mixed bag like Trenberth, part brilliant, genuine scientist, genuinely wants to get things right… and part washed up by the gravy train, the corruption that he cannot yet believe exists RIGHT THROUGH THE WHOLE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE…

Uh oh. I know what it could be. See here. Stanley Milgram wanted to understand why so many apparently rational, kind, normal people got taken in by the unmentionable Austrian lance corporal. Did they really have twisted morality or were they just blindly obeying orders from “authority”?

Milgram’s extraordinary experiments showed that people could be made to do the most awful things to “outsiders”, and put aside all their personal qualms, if they believed they were being commanded to do so by an ostensibly benevolent “authority”. The group of people most likely to behave like this were people that in normal life wanted to please others. Eccentrics and rebels had far better inbuilt brakes to, and recognition of, cruel behaviour per se.

Put that in the marxist Berkeley environment. The False Flag syndrome emerges: Ally, Neutralize, Destroy.Ally “We are fellow skeptics like you! Watts’ concern is important!!”Neutralize “Our results show that Watts’ work, though a salutory check, is actually nothing to worry about!”Destroy “MEDIA MEDIA MEDIA!!! Even skeptics now see that warming has happened, records are trustworthy, and UHI is nothing to worry about!”

sharper00 says:
October 22, 2011 at 1:06 pm
From Watts’ introduction of the BEST project February 2011

“I can tell you that this project is partly a reaction and result of what we’ve learned in the surfacesations project, but mostly, this project is a reaction to many of the things we have been saying time and again, only to have NOAA and NASA ignore our concerns, or create responses designed to protect their ideas, rather than consider if their ideas were valid in the first place.”

That is what Anthony expected. What he got was Bait and Switch. BEST substituted a 60 year period for the 30 year period that Anthony wanted and expected. There is no siting data for the first 30 years of the 60 year period so BEST chose not to address Anthony’s concerns with poor siting.

“Now that it has been clearly shown (again) it WASN’T a siting problem, a new “skeptic” meme must be created, as we see in this post.”

BEST substituted a 60 year period for the 30 year period that Anthony wanted and expected. There is no siting data for the first 30 years of the 60 year period so BEST chose not to address Anthony’s concerns with poor siting. BEST did this without consulting Anthony and so practiced Bait and Switch. BEST had a moral duty to inform the media about how they mistreated Anthony.

Theo Goodwin [reply to sharperoo] That is what Anthony expected. What he got was Bait and Switch. BEST substituted a 60 year period for the 30 year period that Anthony wanted and expected. There is no siting data for the first 30 years of the 60 year period so BEST chose not to address Anthony’s concerns with poor siting.

Hugh Pepper says:
October 22, 2011 at 11:31 am
“You can easily find the answer to your question regarding how much warming can be expected. Check out Dr. Santer’s lecture on this Blog.”
__________________

The BEST acryonym was a warning flag from the beginning. Truly honest folks are reluctant to claim the label: they’re too honest. So you just KNOW if you shop at Honest Al’s you’re going to be robbed …

Brian H – in politics, it is well known that chosen names indicate the opposite of any group’s true intentions. So the Democrats aren’t democratic, and the Republicans aren’t federalists. ThinkProgress doesn’t think and leads to no progress, Fox News is not fair and balanced. MoveOn is a bastion of reactionary conservatism, CFACT cares about today. And so on and so forth. It is a phenomenon that applies more or less everywhere in the world, akin to the Communist “Democratic Republics” of old.

So I am not surprised if PR-obsessed BEST isn’t.

Paradoxically, the best party to vote for should be called “Stupid heartless visionless dishonest losers”. They’d be brilliant, caring, honest, forward-thinking winners, for sure.

The UHE is well established and has consistently been used to exaggerate temperatures. Usually by dropping rural readings that would have showed far less warming than was wanted by the Warmists. Many of us remember the Honolulu weather station head laughingly telling a reporter that record highs were being reported by a single site, the Honolulu International Airport, and that another site half a mile away was far cooler. But the HIC report was the one that would be official.

1610s, from L. hystericus “of the womb,” from Gk. hysterikos “of the womb, suffering in the womb,” from hystera “womb” (see uterus). Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Meaning “very funny” (by 1939) is from the notion of uncontrollable fits of laughter. Related: Hysterically.

I also doubt Anna Lemma is a female member of the human species, otherwise she would have known about the stigma of hysteria.

That reminds me, Durban, perhaps now we know why BEST is rushing out to the media, and planned to long in advance, because they knew the date of Durban. The idea, discredite the skeptics and neutralized and co-opt them before Durban, so that they will not weaken it. yet another peice of data that makes it look more and more like a false flag operation (prentending to be skeptics as a plan to ally with, neutralise, and finally, destroy them).

Quite an effort has been made by many people (including Dr Richard Muller) to portray the BEST pre-pre-pre-papers as some kind of death blow against climate skepticism, as if the whole debate had been a sports match with everybody pigeonholed in two opposite camps: here, the noble scientists finding out the world is warming; there, the ignoble skeptics pretending the world is not warming.

Could I see some quotes on that, or a point to a web site or some such? If so, that would be absolute connfitmation of my already largely confirmed theory (complete with motive) that the BEST project was lying deliberatly when they claimed to be “skeptics” all along.

‘…… At the most fundamental level, the pervasive improvement in public health in the 19th and 20th centuries has ultimately made possible the massive global change that the world is experiencing at present. Improvements in health care, urban sanitation, domestic hygiene, nutrition, and literacy have resulted in greatly reduced infant/child mortality and have facilitated rapid growth in the human population. By reducing costs associated with mortality and disease, they have also allowed increasing accumulation of wealth into the hands of individuals, enabling the development of a consumer society. This, together with an increasingly energy-intensive and carbon-intensive economy over the past century, has caused the rapid build up of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere…..
I = P A T
I is environmental impact
The product of human population size (P)
Level of affluence (A)
Type of technology (T)
p382-383

McMichael and his colleagues would do well to consider the energy-intensive but short lives of women & children in the Asia-Pacific region, in light of Dr Hamlin and staff’ work and the documentary A Walk to Beautiful.

If the global climate temperature trend is positive, as one might expect during the warming phase of an interglacial period, then humankind will be best served by adapting as the alternative would seem to be unrealistic.

If we are able to reduce the global average yearly temperature to a single value, a value that is accurate to +/- .1 degree C, over a period of 150 years and that indicates an increase of somewhat less than a degree C, what does that mean? It could mean that we are actually in the warming phase of the current interglacial or that we are on the leading edge of a positive “noise” artifact within a long-term either positive, negative, or neutral trend.

At any rate, as winter approaches upstate New York (my home for over a half-century), I do what I have done all my life – pray for a warmer winter. If the temp trend is up, it has had no noticeable effect on my life. It is still way too cold for way too long each year.

My adaptation to global warming would be to wear shorts for a larger part of the year, shop the farm markets for fresh produce for a larger part of the year, spend thousands less per year heating my home, not have to spend most of the spring and half of the summer recovering from winter, not have to spend half of the summer and most of the fall preparing for winter, and well, you get the picture.

Maybe the idea of fighting what has occurred in cycle after glacial cycle with or without the interference of humanity is colossal hubris. Maybe we should reap the benefit, however small it might be, of our possibly warming earth and hope for more.

Here are a few things to think about, whether or not it is warming or not due to greenhouse gases:

1. Don’t live on the banks of rivers which flood. Nature thinks that rivers flooding is a good thing: it replenishes land with sediments. It’s just a silly place to build houses.
2. If you live in places where droughts of several years occur repeatedly, it’s a good idea to have good water management strategies, rather than letting all the excess water when it DOES rain flow back into the sea.
3. If you live in places where it can be cold in winter, its a good idea to build houses properly.
4. It’s probably a good idea to plan agricultural needs assuming that La Ninas and El Ninos will be with us, which implies that different places on earth will have different needs to over-produce depending on which regions are having a good year for crops.
5. It’s probably a good idea for deserts to be used for solar power generation. They are hot, sunny and with low population density.

Thanks Maurizio, good post.
I have updated my pages to include links to your Omniclimate. (Willis is a genius)
I consider AGW an extraordinary hypothesis in need of extraordinary proof, and until such proof comes forth, I’ll suspend belief.
On the other hand, SKY and CLOUD are quite extraordinary, I think.

I’m astonished at the belated certainty from skeptics that the “knew all along” that the BEST results would confirm global warming, and would be entirely consistent with the HadCrut, NASA, and NOAA temperature reconstructions.

At the outset of the BEST project, A.W. said he wasn’t sure if the BEST reconstruction would show warming, cooling, or no change, as shown below. A cursory review of this blog and other skeptic blogs easily show routine and frequent comment threads and posts yucking it up about “global cooling”. There was widespread speculation among skeptics that the existing temperature reconstructions were bogus and were based on manipulation, fraud, and deceptions. So how exactly is is that skeptics somehow knew all along that the BEST project would confirm the global warming that had been established in the NASA, NOAA and HadCrut temperature reconstructions? And if skeptics “only” concern about global warming was the attribution of sources, why all the ruckus about allegedly manipulated and fraudulent temperature datasets from existing sources? Finally, A.W. said he would accept “whatever” results BEST produced. There were no caveats, or provisional implications in the statement. Consequently, I don’t get the firestorm of comments downplaying the BEST results.

*******************************************************************************************************************
A. W. Re: the BEST Project: “I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing”….

“And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise…. Climate related website owners, I give you carte blanche to repost this.”

REPLY: And I’d have no problem at all if they kept their word given to me when I visited a full day that they would do this per the scientific method. Instead they went for a media PR blitz before science had a chance to speak. If they had done peer review first, then issued PR, like we see daily from other scientists on Eurekalert.com I’d have no reason for taking an issue with it.

But they changed the game from one of scientific method to one of media blitz. The papers have not completed peer review, and they have not been accepted by a science journal. If I had done the same thing, I’d be excoriated by people just like yourself.

But you seem OK with this PR before peer review method, so I think that says more about you than me. – Anthony

peter stone – I’m astonished at the belated certainty from skeptics that the “knew all along” that the BEST results would confirm global warming, and would be entirely consistent with the HadCrut, NASA, and NOAA temperature reconstructions

* According to the Berkeley group, the Earth’s surface temperature will have risen (on average) slightly less than what indicated by NASA, NOAA and the Met Office
* Differences will be on the edge of statistical significance, leaving a lot open to subjective interpretation
* Several attempts will be made by climate change conformists and True Believers to smear the work of BEST, and to prevent them from publishing their data
* After publication, organised groups of people will try to cloud the issue to the point of leaving the public unsure about what exactly was found by BEST
* New questions will be raised regarding UHI, however the next IPCC assessment’s first draft will be singularly forgetful of any peer-reviewed paper on the topic
* We will all be left with a slightly-warming world, the only other certitude being that all mitigation efforts will be among the stupidest ideas that ever sprung to human mind.

The argument that humans should adapt to climate change rather than try and change the climate is supported by the evidence in BC.

Our Carbon Tax was intended to reduce carbon emissions. Under the Law schools and hospitals must be carbon neutral, which is basically impossible because they have no carbon neutral source of energy they can purchase. So, the schools and hospitals must purchase carbon offsets from Pacific Carbon Exchange.

As a result, taxpayer money that could be used to insulate these schools and hospitals, and to purchase more efficient boilers, that money is instead being removed from schools and hospitals to purchase carbon credits. In the end the result is that schools and hospitals create more CO2 as a result of the law than if they were allowed to instead use the money to improve efficiency.

The problem is that well meaning politicians forget that money is not infinite. We cannot afford to do everything at the same time. If we are going to tax carbon, that money must come from somewhere else, which means giving up something else.

In the case of hospitals and schools the carbon tax means that schools and hospitals can pay the tax, or make improvements, but they cannot afford to do both. The law says they must pay the tax. The law doesn’t say they must make improvements, so they pay the tax and the improvements don’t get made. The very problem the tax was intended to correct is made worse by the tax.

This works out to $10,000 / kW. You will need to generate at a minimum 10% ROI cost per year to pay for the investment and maintenance. More realistically you should shoot for 20-25% to allow for contingencies, opportunity cost (what else could you have done with the money) and heaven forbid, profit. Let us 10% as this is our minimum.

On average you get 2-3 k hours of sunshine a year in a good location. Lets use 3k hours the best case.

3k hours * 0.03 per hour = $90 per year actual return

So, on an investment where we need to make $1000 per year, we are going to make $90 per year best case, when solar power goes head to head with traditional power generation.

In other words, for California to switch to solar power, electricity rates would have to go up by a factor of 10 minimum, and likely a lot more. This is in California, which is perhaps one of the best locations on earth for solar power.

I can only assume that you are trying to make a point with this.
Just what it is…………….

If you are Catholic and think that the Pontifical Academy of Science [ OR a “working group” ] speaks for the Pope – Shame on you…… If not – you are excused. :)
In fact, a “working group” doesn’t even speak for the whole of the academy.
[ As witnessed within your PDF on page 3 ]
Quote:
[ “The opinions expressed with absolute freedom during the presentation of
the papers of this meeting, although published by the Academy, represent
only the points of view of the participants and not those of the Academy.”]

To UKSceptic. Please check out the lecture given by Dr Ben Santer, a real expert on the subject of global warming and climate change. You can find it elsewhere on this BLog site. Dr Santer addresses the issue you raise and cites evidence based on observation. Your skepticism might be alleviated by this information.

“But they changed the game from one of scientific method to one of media blitz. The papers have not completed peer review, and they have not been accepted by a science journal. If I had done the same thing, I’d be excoriated by people just like yourself.”
*************************************************************************************************

That’s fine. But your statement in March said you would accept the BEST results “whatever” they showed. There were no caveats about press releases. I didn’t realize that press releases and waiting for peer review were caveats to your original statement from March. I thought press releases were pretty common for major scientific projects. But thanks for providing your feedback on why you aren’t accepting or endorsing BEST anymore.

As for the belated assertions that skeptics “knew all along” that the earth was in a warming trend, I don’t see how this comports with frequent and numerous posts here and on other skeptics blogs claiming the temperature records were fraudulent, and fabricated to exaggerate or even fabricate warming. Or with your comments that you didn’t know if BEST reconstructions would show warming or cooling. And if global warming was such a foregone consensus in the skeptical blog world, what’s up with all the posts about some snowstorm, or some cold spells with follow up comments and much yucking it up about “global cooling”. Collectively, it all gives the impression that skeptics were unconvinced of any measurable or significant warming, or worse – they thought warming trends that are now re-confirmed by BEST were fraudulent. With all due respect, it seems like a whole lotta goal post moving going on.

“If GHGs are determined to be a major cause of the warming (as opposed to landuse changes, or black carbon on snow, or dark colored aerosols, etc) and if we determine that the warming will be on balance a negative occurrence, is there a cost-effective way to reduce the GHGs, or are we better off putting our money into adaptation?”

All in all a common sense take on what the political/economic response should be to a warming planet. However, I found this above quoted paragraph a bit too narrow in it’s list of possible warming causes. It could simply be we are in warming and cooling cycles without much affect at all from Humans one way or another.

The reason I think this simple ‘nature is driving climate’ reason needs to be considered is simply the ice core data from both Greenland and Antarctica that gives a near term (geologically speaking) view of the Earth’s temps over the last number of Ice ages. They both show a dramatic swing out of the last Ice age to warm temps (warmer than now) and then swings in temps both up and down in a periodic fashion with each upward swing in temps topping off less warm than the last one, meaning the overall trend has been gradual cooling since the emergence to warm temps after the last ice age. The Medieval Warming period was warmer than now, the Roman period was warmer than now, the Minoan warming period at 1400 bc was even warmer. Each of these were warmer than the next one that followed it. Anyone coming to this debate should really look at the ice core data before even starting discussions.

There are lots of these ice core graphs out there. Take your pick. They all show the same thing. There is nothing exceptional going on other than man overstating his importance over nature. My opinion is that man’s signature, in the final analysis, is probably within the noise floor of any nature caused trends.

My Magic 8 ball says there will be another bait and switch, this is a pre-publication PR release, there will be changes made to the actual publication papers and the warmistas will be claiming the peer-reviewed published paper as authoritative, yet taking their talking points from the PR version.

For those claiming that “no skeptic has ever claimed that the world was getting warmer”, how do you explain the first three items of the “Summary for Policy Makers” from the report “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception” authored by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts? I paste them below:

1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

dalazal says:
October 23, 2011 at 10:10 pm
“For those claiming that “no skeptic has ever claimed that the world was getting warmer”, how do you explain the first three items of the “Summary for Policy Makers” from the report “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception” authored by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts? ”

Steve from Rockwood says:
October 22, 2011 at 7:40 pm
I thought the pope was Polish.

German :)

{Sigh} He was making a joke about being a decade or two out of date. Note the reference to his “286”; that’s the IBM PC 80286 chip used in the “AT” models, circa 1985.

kim;) says:
October 24, 2011 at 12:00 am

dalazal says:
October 23, 2011 at 10:10 pm
“For those claiming that “no skeptic has ever claimed that the world was getting warmer”, how do you explain the first three items of the “Summary for Policy Makers” from the report “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception” authored by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts? ”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
With reading comprehension?

Note the missing “not” in the first quote; s/b “that the world was NOT getting warmer”.
Lots of reading comp problems going ’round, apparently.
>;p

Brian H says:
October 24, 2011 at 3:29 am
” {Sigh} He was making a joke about being a decade or two out of date. Note the reference to his “286″; that’s the IBM PC 80286 chip used in the “AT” models, circa 1985.”

1) On the one hand, some here dispute that Watts and other skeptics claimed that the world was not getting warmer. The very author of this post claims this is a “crass, outdated lie”.

2) On the other hand, readers of this very blog, who presumably *have had* access to claims of D’Aleo and Watts’ report from August of 2010, immediately point to this new post (which is about the US only!), authored by a guy who admittedly is not a climate scientist and has no specific training in the field showing NO WARMING TREND for the 20th century.

It seems that the skeptics (Watts included) need to own it. While it might be true that some were consistent from the beginning in their positions, the majority seems to vacilate, according to what is convenient, between “there is no evidence of warming” and “sure, there is warming, the question is how much is due to human activity”.

I challenge you provide a verbatim statement by Anthony Watts where Anthony states flatly that the planet is not warming. I think you are a despicable little troll who deliberately misrepresents what we have been discussing here over the past five years. Put up or shut up, troll.

Dalazal : stop embarrassing yourself – the work may be getting warmer yet only slightly so. What happens at US level may be warming cooling or nothing at all, it’s got little to do with the rest of the planet combined.

Is this not a co-authored document by Anthony Watts? Does it not say that “it cannot be credibly
asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century”?

Moreover, even if it is true that Anthony Watts does not personally think that there has been no global warming and is just happy to let others interpret his work that way, you don’t need to go very far in this blog to find all kinds of posts and comments where people just flatly deny the evidence that there has been global warming at all. See the commenters that responded to me here, who immediately pointed me to this new post:

and were just too happy to interpret this as meaning that there has been no significant global warming. Go to the comments in that thread and see how many people are just gloating over how this is the nail in the coffin of the AGW crowd. Their argument is simple: There is no warming!

You might want to make the argument that these people are not skeptics or at least not representative of the way most skeptics see the issue, or whatever. If that is the case, then you should do your best to disabuse them from the idea that there has been no warming in the 20th century, and point them to the real argument, which now seems to be about “how much warming?” and “who/what caused it?”.

The Mueller report and the reaction to it by skeptics lays bare the irrationality and hypocrisy of the AGW denial movement. The denial movement and the young Earth creationist movement have much in common. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

I doubt this post will make it through the moderator.

REPLY: Well this one will, but others will not because you’ve used a fake email address. – Anthony

Omnologos: What is the basis for your belief that the world is not getting significantly warmer?

Smokey: Do you deny that some vocal skeptics have been disputing the evidence that the world was getting warmer? Because I see this happening in this blog all the time. In fact, I just showed you a thread where this is happening right now. If you really don’t think skeptics should be making that argument, you should not be discussing with me, because I agree with you. You should be going to that thread and disabusing people from that idea.

The planet has warmed – naturally – from 288K to 288.8K over a century and a half. That is insignificant. The planet has warmed and cooled to a much greater extent, and in a much shorter time frame, many times in the past – when CO2 levels were under 300 ppmv. Charts on request.

And you claim that “…vocal skeptics have been disputing the evidence that the world was getting warmer… all the time.” Cite a dozen or so verbatim statements to that effect, or admit you’re winging it. The onus is on you to back your allegations. I challenge you to post a dozen verbatim statements, out of almost 700,000 reader comments.

Try to pay attention…read each word slowly…chew each and every word carefully and you might be able to digest :)

You Quoted:
[ “1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.” ]

Anonymous Scientist says:
October 24, 2011 at 10:20 am
” I doubt this post will make it through the moderator.”

ha ha ha ha…..
As a “scientist” …and this being a work day…I have to ask: Who’s paying you to read and post on blogs?

Maybe, you could do an experiment [ actual science ] that shows causation and correlation – empirical observational evidence, for your beliefs in AGW? It would sure help your cause and it’s been a few decades in arrears – like the “rent”. :)

I can think of three claims in particular that skeptics have made in recent years against the surface temperature records that have been refuted by the BEST results:

1) Cold stations were deliberately deleted in GHCN in the 90s which increased warming
2) Scientists have adjusted the data over time to reduce the 1940-1970s cooling
3) Scientists have been “cooking the books” exaggerating warming in various ways by adjusting and altering raw data (ie both the above plus more)

These were not claims made by a single blog they were widespread, well publicized arguments. They were also clearly wrong. BEST has merely very publicly shown it.

Anyone who believed those claims would have had zero trust in the surface temperature record. To the point that how could they accept the world had warmed?

So I don’t buy that skeptics can just wash their hands of the matter as if the BEST results were expected. A lot of skeptics are now saying they accepted the world has warmed. But where were they when accusations like this were doing down:

“NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”

And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales.

onion2 – there is no such a thing as a “BEST result”. There is no result unless and until they manage to get their papers published, and the published results pass a minimum of smoke tests by knowledgeable onlookers. So far we only have stuff thrown to the dogs and the journalists, with zero correction on spelling errors (let alone problems with maths and evaluations).

But even assuming everything will be published as-is, you have completely missed the fact that, as they stand, the BEST papers do not support any alarm about climate, since a warming up of 2C since 1800 hasn’t resulted in any disaster.

Furthermore you have failed to understand the difference between reporting issues with measurement in one country (the USA) and disbelieving the warming up of the whole planet. Since you’re not the first one trying to make the same flawed point in this thread, chances are you’re not interested in a dialogue.

Furthermore, BEST did no measurements of its own, but used the same 95%-overlap pre-adjusted data set relied on by Warmists. So their study “begs the question” in the logic sense: the conclusion is presumed in the assumptions.

On the subject of religion and “Climate Change” since there seems to be a bit of confusion.

Holy Land’s religious leaders reach agreement– on climate change
In a rare sign of accord, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders in the Holy Land will unite behind a call for action on climate change, Vatican Insider reports.

On the subject of religion and “Climate Change” since there seems to be a bit of confusion.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Trying to understand your point………..

Are you saying that Religious brought on the AGW hypothesis and activism? If so, I believe, the AGW hypothesis was conceived / fueled / financed without Religions [ other than the religion of environmentalists ]…and most of them (environmentalists) that brought us AGW… subscribe to what belief structure?

Are you saying that Religious have never before been concerned about climatic / environmental / economic issues / impacts faced by humankind before AGW?

Are you saying the unproven hypothesis of AGW is the same as Climate [ Climate Change ]?
BTW was it Religions that changed the name – so that it could “Green” Religions? You see, in the strictest sense, “Anthropogenic” – “Anthropocentric” – “Anthropocene” – “Man-Made Climate” aren’t really words Religious flock towards. Those names seem to radically change the sift from what they believe…. BUT Climate, by nature, has always changed. Haven’t you ever wondered who did… and why the name changed from “AGW” to “Climate Change”?

You linked to a page that has the word Vatican and Catholic in it….are you trying to say that “Vatican Insider” [ a newspaper ] and “Catholic Culture Blog” are the voice of Catholicism, or that even The Pontifical Academy of Science is?

Do you suggest that Climate / environmental / economic issues and or impacts, on humankind, only pertain to non-theists and should not be discussed or investigated, by theists?

Like it or not, the hypothesis of AGW and CO2 regulations and economic schemes imposed by AGW’ers…. are nondiscriminatory to humans.

IMO Climate Realists have a choice – To maintain the old, “religion is anti-science” mantra….and alienate… OR to invite and help educate… to be able to see / recognize the new “Greeners of Religions”???

kim;) says: October 23, 2011 at 12:30 pm
I can only assume that you are trying to make a point with this.
Just what it is…………….
If you are Catholic and think that the Pontifical Academy of Science [ OR a “working group” ] speaks for the Pope – Shame on you…… If not – you are excused. :)

Sorry about warping your smiley kim;)
I do not need your excuse, but thanks for the honour……

I guess I was not trying to make a point, but just posting information for readers. And those that have not read Donna Lamframboise’ book. And for readers to further consider the output from the academic public health sphere and its absence in detailing violence over the years yet its interest in AGW and meeting the (developing nations) global health/Millennium Goals etc. http://www.cfcpng.org.pg/downloads/petition_agains_family_violence_11.06.08.pdf

Public health has long committed itself to the [spiritualism of the] environment and tribal peoples (codified at Alma Ata in 1978). It is quite a feat of science to carpet such facts of life-lived violence while negating ‘human dignity’. And then to propose Nobel Prize winning Grameen Bank ideas, or carbon exchanges in vast areas kept deliberately gated by anthro-pologists-cum-eco-nomists and radical environ-mentalists over the years resulting in gross lack of production or development or now touted for tourism for eg.
I guess it would only take a ‘revolution’, in IT not an industrial one, for a ‘market’ to develop? Maintain education of all while the dictators (elders) of ‘communal lands’ are supported in new ventures? What is this model supporting?

‘…As religious leaders of different faiths, who share the conviction in the one Creator, Lord of the Universe; we believe that the essence of religion is to worship G-d and respect the life and dignity of all human beings, regardless of religion, nationality and gender.
We accordingly commit ourselves to use our positions and good offices, to advance these sacred values, to prevent religion from being used as a source of conflict, and to promote mutual respect, a just and comprehensive peace and reconciliation between people of all faiths in the Holy Land and worldwide.’http://www.crihl.org/ (thanks to Gail Combs, and I just noted kim is trying to understand her point also).

Yep, carbon trading, the new religion, certainly dampens that source of conflict between religions. That is the new eco-religion, based on trading a very small % of the atmosphere for the sake of retaining communal land under dictators, littel improvement in violence against wmen, teenagers and children and rights-based types while playing with private property rights of others by the State.

Hmmm. Even PNG local peoples can condemn the behaviour of individuals and their greater impact on women and children. Australians can’t even do that for the women, teenagers and children in the vast outback reserves. Let alone the Church(es) in Australia. Or Bill Gates.

#35 ‘It is in the interests of the market to promote emancipation, but in order to do so effectively, it cannot rely only on itself, because it is not able to produce by itself something that lies outside its competence. It must draw its moral energies from other subjects that are capable of generating them. bold inserted.
I guess it is the in the moral interests of those that are not frightened to speak out, even if there is granted no freedom of speech…… or human dignity? Surely that IS THE ROLE of The Church?

BTW…I am going to hear Cardinal George Pell speak at the GWPF’s Annual Lecture in London, UK on Oct 26 (6pm GMT). Topic “One Christian Perspective on Climate Change”. If there is cell signal, I’ll report from it live on Twitter (@mmorabito67).

Thank you for pointing out the obvious dishonesty. I honestly cannot fathom the level of cognitive dissonance impairment required to not realise even a slight discrepancy between:

[blockquote]1) “it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century”[/blockquote]

and:

[blockquote]2) “Needless to say, it’s all the usual crass, outdated lie [that] skeptics [are] pretending the world is not warming.” [/blockquote]

Actually, every single blog that has pushed the urban heat island effect as a major source of contamination of the global data set has made the same claim as in 1). This includes both WUWT, Climateaudit, BishopHill, William Briggs and almost every minor sceptic troll blog (“Omnologos”, CO2science, antigreen etc. etc.)

[blockquote]”A man is suing his neighbor. He claims in court that the neighbor borrowed a kettle from him and returned it damaged. He wants the neighbor to pay reparations.

The neighbor offers his defense in three parts: 1) “I never borrowed the kettle.” 2) “It was already damaged when I got it.” 3) “It was in perfect condition when I returned it.”[/blockquote]

Find the point you deem to be the least minimally defensible and argue from this – and proceed to the next when necessary (and just ignore any contradictions, inconsistencies and such boorish stuff). 1) CO2 is not rising significantly compared to earlier in the 20th century (Beck, Segalstad, Jaworowski) 2) OK, so CO2 is rising, but human sources are but a minor player (Howard Hayden, Spencer on WUWT) 3) OK, so human CO2 is significant, but its temperature effect is nonexistant (Heinz Hug) 4) OK, so CO2 has a temperature effect, but it is dwarfed by water vapour (Lindzen, Reid Bryson, Tim Ball 5) OK, so the CO2 temperature effect is not completely dwarfed by water vapour, but the sun is much more important (Svensmark, Shaviv, many others) 6) OK, so the solar output has been flat since the 50ies, but there are no net positive feedback (Lindzen again, Spencer again) 7) Actually, there has been no significant global warming (Watts, Singer + more), 8) Hey, all this warming is a) unstoppable anyway (Singer again) b) good for humanity (Michaels).

Of course one may throw in all sorts of rubbish anywhere in between, return to previous talking points when the sceptic realises that he is going down a risky path :) or simply use them all invariably in blog post written a litlle time apart, hoping that your readers either have a short memory or care equally little about such petite details as consistency. Several of these arguments have been put favourably forward on this blog, more or less thinly veiled as someone “just lauching some interesting heretic thought”………chances are that sometime in the future, new posts in this blog will push the “no significant global warming” meme again. I certainly wont be sitting waiting by the computer……….:)

I post on an international Christian site, for a number of years now, mostly on social justice. Which of course, also includes the issues of AGW – Cap and Trade – Carbon Credit schemes etc.

As with the public, a Church relies on information. Sadly, it gets the information from the same MSM as does the public. At first, I was set upon by the hmmmmm “SOLD ON AGW” crowd. Even to the point that someone, who couldn’t debate the issues, invited posters from SkS and RC to “come and set me straight”. :) The problem was, unlike them, I would read opposing views such as SkS and RC [ pre SkS’s changes ]….and knew what the “counters” to claims made by this crowd were.

I absolutely know that my posts have been seen by the pulpit. As witnessed by two PAS reports having an Official spokesperson set the record straight, in news articles, about not coming from the Pope, as it was being reported as having come from. The problem was, much like the BEST report, it was leaked to news agencies before hand. It was even described as being peer-reviewed. [ No PAS paper is peer-reviewed, no matter how many authors they list within it ].

The point I’m trying to make: Sometimes, it takes the “body” of a Church to wakeup the “pulpit”.

BTW…I am going to hear Cardinal George Pell speak at the GWPF’s Annual Lecture in London, UK on Oct 26 (6pm GMT). Topic “One Christian Perspective on Climate Change”. If there is cell signal, I’ll report from it live on Twitter (@mmorabito67).

I can see you are used to posting on php blogs. Try instead of [ ] ..:)

You say [ and my bolding ]:
“1). This includes both WUWT, Climateaudit, BishopHill, William Briggs and almost every minor sceptic troll blog (“Omnologos”, CO2science, antigreen etc. etc.)

hmmmmm

You say:
“Of course one may throw in all sorts of rubbish anywhere in between, return to previous talking points when the sceptic realises that he is going down a risky path :) or simply use them all invariably in blog post written a litlle time apart, hoping that your readers either have a short memory or care equally little about such petite details as consistency. ”

Oh my…:)
Constancy? Surely, you MUST be talking of ” hide the decline” – “It’s in the oceans” – It’s a travesty” – redefine what the peer-review” – adjusted” – “and adjusted” etc….etc……….etc………………

You’ve had over 30 years and hundreds of millions of dollars – And all you can show is the AGW mantra and “adjusted data” spewed by “adjusted models”.

“Smokey”: You may well (as usual) have missed anything related to logic, facts, arguments, and three-syllable words, but I fully agree you deserve a laugh about my lack of html skills. Just stick to such objections in the future, and this blog will be a better place for all of us.

“Kim;”: I gather that you don´t like Trenberth, Jones and probably others, but I honestly have no idea what other points, if any, you were trying to make, and/or if they were related to anything brought up by me or others in this thread?

Maurizio Morabito: The only slight problem with your “argument” is that BEST shows that Earth is not warming up because of UHI. Oh wait, and you failed (like in all other similar comments) to explain how “no significant global warming in the 20th century” could be compatible with the result of BEST, here in Muller´s own words:

Professor Muller and his colleagues, including this year’s physics Nobel winner, Saul Perlmutter, had suspected the previous work had been tainted by the “urban heat island effect”, where increasing urbanisation around weather stations was causing the temperature increases recorded over the past half-century.

But a fine statistical analysis showed the urban heat effect could not explain a global temperature increase of about 1C since 1950. Professor Muller said the warming was not the result of data bias caused by selective elimination of some weather stations from the analysis, or the practice of “homogenisation” to take into account changes in weather station positions or instrumentation.

I am a bit puzzled how such an obvious point could escape a man with such ample experience in scientific writing/editing. Oh, wait……..:)

CBH is clearly under the illusion that this site is like the ones he’s used to, in which The Message is unitary, uniform, and carefully filtered. The exploration of multiple POVs and analytic approaches is deadly to the purity of AGWist sites, but core here.

Yes, CBH has been sent running off to Skeptical Pseudo-Science with his tail between his legs before by WUWT commentators. Now, instead of using his time productively to learn the most elementary HTML commands, Bugge Harder is back bugging us harder, but accomplishing nothing constructive. He can’t. Here’s why:

If CBH ever learns how to comprehend the null hypothesis, he will understand that there’s no “there” there. CAGW has no testable, empirical supporting evidence. It is merely a conjecture that cannot be falsified like the null hypothesis, and therefore the scientific method doesn’t apply to it. It’s just conjecture.

Well that is interesting Kim.
For instance, given that primary health and education in Latin America (and PNG, Timor etc) have in the past and currently are provided by The Church at ‘grass-roots’ level, then there would appear to be a problem with what is reported up the line?

I am afraid I do not understand the term ‘social justice’- individual justice, yes.
Otherwise we are going into the field of Freire, in my view a complete blight on the landscape. You’d almost be telling me we need structural readjustment programs based on carbon or carbon dioxide to pay for health and education to achieve social justice? Pull the other one!

I hope you made the time to watch the 50 min Dr Hamlin video. The point there, besides the honour had by Dr Hamlin to having luncheon with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, being that men (hey and they were both black and white blokes) were conducting gynaecological/obstetric surgery and clinical discussions. This work, by men that they have been effectively sidelined [banned] from doing has been due to feminist outcry. In many many other nations, even here in outback Australia, where some midwives want to return tribal peoples to ‘traditional birthing practices.’ The gender and colour debate has truly reached downwards to its penultimate, at the expense, of truly lived needs of the woman/child.

Dear moderator: Sorry if I insulted our undoubtedly likable and honourable host. However, I would honestly love to hear someone explain how one can seriously reconcile our honourable host´s (and many other´s with him) statement

Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

with the result of BEST, which happen to show that it can indeed be credibly and undeniably affirmed (once again) that there has been an unequivocally significant “global warming” in the 20th century that is in no way a result of any wide, systematical or unidirectional tampering of pre-satellite data.

Our honourable host may disagree with BEST, but the (IMHO) slightly less honourable author of this post suggests that “it’s all the usual crass, outdated lie [that] skeptics [are] pretending the world is not warming”. With all due respect, our honourable, sceptical host did clearly make a pretense that the temperature data of GISS/NOAA/NCDC/HADCRU could not be used to claim that the world was warming.

For the sake of consistency, Mr. Morabito must either reject the result of BEST, rendering this post pointless, or our honourable host must set him straight and admit that BEST is irreconcilable with his own previous statements, also rendering this post pointless. Leaving blatant inconsistencies uncorrected is highly damaging to a site´s credibility. I fail to see how any fair-minded reading of this could possibly arrive at a different conclusion.

P.S. I hope the above is sufficiently polite to let through. You are, of course, free to snip this below if you want, but I would be happy if anyone could enlighten me as to what insulting content the previous post contained? “Brian H” appeared to suggest that it was the core of this site to explore arguments along the lines of e.g. a) world isn´t warming, b) warming of the world is all natural, and anyway, c) the anthropogenic warming is only small.
I merely pointed out that this approach may work fine for a defense lawyer whose legitimate job it is to try to generate reasonable doubt (and who legitimately does not need to believe in what he says), but that in science, one needs to have a consistent argument one actually believes in, taking into account the whole picture, if one is to be taken seriously. If “Brian H” thinks that such lawyerly approaches are the core of WUWT, and if this appeared insulting to you, then maybe you should rather have a kind word with “Brian H” instead of attacking the messenger?

* According to the Berkeley group, the Earth’s surface temperature will have risen (on average) slightly less than what indicated by NASA, NOAA and the Met Office

Actually, BEST found a trend of 1.9 ± 0.1 °C/100yr since 1950, exactly what has been indicated by NASA: NOAA and CRU.

* Differences will be on the edge of statistical significance, leaving a lot open to subjective interpretation

But somehow, the results left nothing open to interpretations regarding whether the trend was a) real, b) significant, or c) not a result of UHI.

* Several attempts will be made by climate change conformists and True Believers to smear the work of BEST, and to prevent them from publishing their data

On the contrary, everybody welcomed the results of BEST´s work (though noting that it was highly unsurprising), and RealClimate has even called it “laudable” that they are writing their work up as scientific papers.

* After publication, organised groups of people will try to cloud the issue to the point of leaving the public unsure about what exactly was found by BEST

Actually, journalists and organised groups have made it painstakingly clear for everyone what BEST found, as has Muller himself: The trend is clear, robust and by no means a result of UHI or irregular “tampering”. (It is hardly their fault that it still does not appear to have filtered down to the author of this blog)

* New questions will be raised regarding UHI, however the next IPCC assessment’s first draft will be singularly forgetful of any peer-reviewed paper on the topic

The questions having been raised against BEST and their treatment of UHI issues have, so far, been exactly the same tired arguments we have heard for decades now, which are already debunked in BEST itself. But I will be surprised if those papers, once they get published, do not appear in the next IPCC report, both in draft and in the final version.

* We will all be left with a slightly-warming world, the only other certitude being that all mitigation efforts will be among the stupidest ideas that ever sprung to human mind.

“Slightly” contains enough wiggle room for any suggested trend as to be impossible to evaluate, but certainly, we are left with a world warming exactly as it was concluded before BEST. As for the latter “certitude”, while I don´t pretend to know or be able to evaluate all mitigation efforts, then I can say for sure that I have seen far more grotesquely stupid ideas and claims from at least one self-identified omniscient blogger posting not far from here.

Dear Mr. Morabito: If you could find time to answer just how you reconcile the honourable Mr. Watts:

Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

with Mullers results:

Muller: “The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature trends. We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups”.

[T]he urban heat effect could not explain a global temperature increase of about 1C since 1950. Professor Muller said the warming was not the result of data bias caused by selective elimination of some weather stations from the analysis, or the practice of “homogenisation” to take into account changes in weather station positions or instrumentation.

then it would suffice.

I appreciate you may find it difficult to fit in your hard-pressed schedule – it sure must take some time to find words fit to defend all Berlusconi´s actions, or to write three papers in less than 20 years – but I hold out high hopes. .)

Am sorry CBH but I can take the donkey to the water, and I can show the donkey how to drink the water, but under no circumstance I’m going to spend any time arguing with the donkey what to do, with the water.

“Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant ‘global warming’ in the 20th century.”

The official temperature record has been so completely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it can not be credibly asserted that the official record reflects reality. All official adjustments result in a more alarming message. There probably has been some mild natural global warming since the LIA. But based upon the constant revisions of the official record – revisions which always indicate either higher current temperatures, or a more rapid warming, they cannot credibly assert anything. Their unexplained revisions are simply a ploy to get more funding by falsely alarming the public.

Once again I invite Bugge Harder to try to falsify my simple and straightforward hypothesis, using empirical, testable evidence per the scientific method:

CO2 is a harmless and beneficial trace gas. More is better.

B-H is going to have to either provide testable evidence verifying global harm traceable specifically to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or be seen as just another in a long line of mendacious alarmists who cannot falisfy the hypothesis. The demonization of “carbon” is being promoted by unscrupulous individuals and groups for their own self-serving agenda. They are a plague of scientific charlatans and parasites on on all honest taxpaying citizens.

Mr. Morabito: Staying with the metaphors: If you could just offer some kind of hint as to where in your “arguments” in this thread you see just the slightest drop of water, then this poor thirsty donkey will happily do all work necessary to find any way to quench his insatiable though hitherto woefully unfulfilled thirst for logic, consistency and truth.

Smokey: You are merely rehashing all the old points debunked by the BEST team (and many others before them). Given this plain and simple refusal to accept or even consider the facts here, I have little doubt that you will dispel out of hand any reference to the attribution studies linking the observed warming to GHGs (like e.g. Stott et al. 2000), or the following droughts in the Mediterranean region or the Moscow Heat wave . Besides, I think you will use this as a “safe exit” that will allow you to make any kind of argument along the lines that that since we have only one planet, it is impossible to test anything reliably in the climate system anyway.

However, one thing that is already well known and simply testable is the CO2 acidification of the oceans, which has many times been shown to be detrimental to corals, coralline algae, foraminifera or shellfish (see e.g http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/full/ngeo100.html ). This is quite unequivocally an adverse effect due to anthropogenic CO2. (Of course, I´m sure you will find a way to dismiss this as some kind of alarmist fakery, too. But then again, you also have some trouble grasping the fact that the CO2 rise is manmade anyway, don´t you :)

I do, however, credit you for being such an honest, well-paying taxpayer. We really do need people like you.

The “ocean acidification” nonsense has been debunked by experts, while you were no doubt picking up alarmist talking points at Skeptical Pseudo-Science [SPS] and other lightly trafficked propaganda blogs. Here are some links to the science:

You’re not nearly up to speed on the ocean pH question. When you’ve finished reading the articles and comments linked above, you will know something about the subject.

And it is you who are projecting your faults onto others. You say I have not read your links, but I have. The latest link is from 2007, and the previous was from 2000. They have since been falsified due to bad experimental modeling. Read the links I provided to find out more.

Rather than avoid the shenanigans exposed in the charts and blink gifs I linked, you simply avoided facing the corruption of the temperature record – which absolutely supports Anthony’s statement that “Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant ‘global warming’ in the 20th century.” I provided proof. You answered with baseless opinion.

Finally, I note that you continue to hide out from my hypothesis:

CO2 is a harmless and beneficial trace gas. More is better.

It is because you are unable to falsify it in any testable manner, per the scientific method. It is the current null hypothesis, against which the alternate CAGW hypothesis fails; nothing unusual is occurring. Natural variability fully explains the planet’s various climate systems, with no need to add an extraneous variable like CO2.

Samoht – you know what? I’ve had enough of you corpse-eaters, always ready to try to push your agendas by taking advantage of people killed by weather and carelessness on the part of public authorities.

Your life is made up of long days passed in front of disaster-filled screens and newspapers, as you salivate in a frenzy pumped up by somebody else’s blood and tears. Shame would be a reward.

CBH is clearly under the illusion that this site is like the ones he’s used to, in which The Message is unitary, uniform, and carefully filtered. The exploration of multiple POVs and analytic approaches is deadly to the purity of AGWist sites, but core here.

So his distress and confusion are ineluctable.
_____________________________________________

Yes I noticed if there is a discussion with N comments you get N+10 bits of info here at WUWT

I always love the “It is Warming” and skeptics deny it crap such as CHB is talking of. The statement is NEVER qualified with a start and end time so it is completely and utterly meaningless in most cases.

For example,

it has cooled from noon to dawn (true most days)

21st century – pretty much flat

1970 to 1999 – slightly warming

Cooling last 2000 years

last 0.03 million years – sharply warming
last 1.30 million years – cooling

This graph (greenland) makes it more obvious that over all we are gradually cooling back down from the highest temp in the Holocene although the other graph also show that if you look closely.

So as usual while Christoffer Bugge Harder is focused on the kettle and only the kettle like a good little follower, skeptics are busy looking at the whole kitchen. No wonder he is confused, he needs to take his blinkers off.

Gail Combs says:
October 28, 2011 at 12:05 pm
From the article it looks like at least some religious leaders are jumping on the CAGW band wagon as part of an “International Meeting” And yes it was covered by a catholic “media outlet”

——————
Again, your point being?
I thought you were going to make a point when you stated:

Gail Combs says:
October 24, 2011 at 10:19 pm

On the subject of religion and “Climate Change” since there seems to be a bit of confusion.

—————————-

C’mon, I thought you are an educator?

You made that statement after I pointed out in a prior post that said: “I repeat: “The Pope has never spoken these words from the chair…Anthropogenic Climate Change – AGW – Man Made Climate.”

Even loosely construed to mean “International” – It doesn’t address your point, “On the subject of religion and “Climate Change” since there seems to be a bit of confusion.”

————————–

Your pointing to Religious [ esp Catholic ] as an example and trying to make a point about 1 Catholic’s [ personal ] beliefs in AGW…. is IMO a bit of a long stretch. I can think of no organization of people that doesn’t have some who believe in AGW – Can you? Just look at organizations that you might belong to such as Teachers Associations – Unions.

Multiple PoVs are good, and I am convinced that the human race can adapt.
I am not convinced that many plant and animal species can adapt.
Evolution works more slowly than the present movement of the thermoclines.

Autoecu continue to search for high dollar, high failure rate automotive electronic controllers. They then reverse engineer the controller, isolate and document all internal component failures. They research and locate the highest quality, longest lasting components to replace the identified failed components.

Multiple PoVs are good, and I am convinced that the human race can adapt.
I am not convinced that many plant and animal species can adapt.
Evolution works more slowly than the present movement of the thermoclines.

They exist, and have persisted through much more severe climate flips than even the worst IPCC projections. Hence, they have the “genetic resources” to adapt. Evolving new ones is not necessary.